Tax Appeal Dismissed, Expenses Disallowed under Section 115JB

The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, but provisions for bad and doubtful debts, incorrect computation of book profit under section 115JB, loss on sale of scrap, and loss on obsolescence of stores were not allowed as expenditures. The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) on all issues, finding no merit in the assessee's arguments. The decision was pronounced on 2nd November 2022.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Allowability of provisions for bad and doubtful debts.
3. Correct computation of book profit under section 115JB.
4. Treatment of loss on sale of scrap.
5. Treatment of loss on obsolescence of stores.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 375 days. The assessee explained the delay was due to administrative standstill and confusion post the division of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the reasons provided and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

2. Allowability of Provisions for Bad and Doubtful Debts:
The assessee debited Rs. 87,30,955/- towards provisions for bad and doubtful debts in the P&L account. The CIT noted that provisions for bad and doubtful debts are not allowable expenditures under the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that these amounts were long-pending receivables and were written off as irrecoverable. However, the CIT (A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the amounts were receivables from government entities, and there was no confirmation that these amounts would not be paid in the future. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A), noting that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is not an allowable expenditure under the Income Tax Act.

3. Correct Computation of Book Profit Under Section 115JB:
The assessee computed book profit under section 115JB at Rs. 28,866.02 lakhs, whereas the CIT noted it should have been Rs. 51,008.45 lakhs. The CIT observed that the Assessing Officer failed to verify the short computation of income under section 115JB. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, stating that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the computation of book profit, making the original assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

4. Treatment of Loss on Sale of Scrap:
The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 3,43,45,409/- on the sale of scrap. The CIT (A) disallowed this loss, stating that the scrap was valued at realizable value, and there could not be a loss on its sale. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the sale of scrap is not the basic business of the assessee, and the loss on scrap cannot be termed as a business expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT (A).

5. Treatment of Loss on Obsolescence of Stores:
The assessee debited Rs. 15,03,01,740/- towards obsolescence of stores. The CIT (A) disallowed this amount, stating that it was a provision and not an actual expenditure. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that provisions cannot be allowed as expenditures unless quantified on a scientific basis. The assessee failed to show any reversal of entries on account of changes in the provision in subsequent years. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT (A).

Conclusion:
Both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal found no merit in the arguments presented by the assessee and upheld the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) on all issues. The order was pronounced in the Open Court on 2nd November 2022.

---